Before the year 1611 there were many different translations of the Bible, but none were very consistent. At that time, at the command of King James I, forty-seven scholars from various theological and educational backgrounds, separated into six individual groups, completed the task of translating the Bible from the original Hebrew manuscripts and extant English documents. Mary Sidney would have been as familiar with the resulting King James Version of the Bible as any other educated person in eighteenth-century England would have been. In his paraphrase of "Psalm 139," it seems that Sidney does not feel that the King James Version adequately expresses his innermost thoughts. The Psalms in the Bible are the production of numerous authors, the most important of whom is David. Although David's Psalms contain his innermost thoughts about God, Sidney often takes these thoughts and develops them further. At times she seems to show more confidence than David, but at other times she appears more docile and reserved. Although it eloquently paraphrases David's work in beautiful verse, it lacks coherence and its overall credibility suffers. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay One of the most obvious differences between the King James version of "Psalm 139" and Mary Sidney's version is the style. Although the Psalms are traditionally known to be songs written by David, "Psalm 139" does not appear to be very structured in the King James Version. It is composed of twenty-four lines which consist roughly of two iambic lines each. However, verse one has only one line, while verses twelve, fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen contain three lines each. Although it appears that the author attempted to form each line with ten bars, they range from six to twelve bars and are not necessarily composed of even feet. Often, this leaves a feeling of awkwardness, as the reader expects there to be an extra beat in the line for it to sound complete. The second line of verse six exemplifies this dilemma: “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;/ It is high, I cannot reach it.” One would expect the first line of this verse to require an equally formally constructed sequel, but the reader is left with a sense of incompleteness. This makes sense, however, since the translators probably sought to keep the text as faithful to the original as possible, which diminished the importance of stylistic devices such as rhyme and meter. Sidney chooses to approach "Psalm 139" more poetically. He writes thirteen stanzas, each containing seven lines meticulously crafted in iambic tetrameter. In each verse, Sidney doesn't deviate from an ABCCBAB rhyme scheme, which is extremely difficult to stick to, especially when you're translating. Her ability to do so alone highlights Sidney's poetic ability. However, Sidney had substantially more freedom in the use of poetic devices than the writers of the King James Version, resulting in stanzas that seem fluid and natural. What once was “Thou hast compassed me before and behind,/ and laid thine hand upon me/ Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;/ it is exalted, I cannot reach it” (KJV v. 5-6), transforms gracefully into “If I walk forward, you go in front,/ If I turn back, you come behind:/ So neither forward nor backward/ I miss your guard,/ No, I find your hand on me too. / Well I thy wisdom may worship, / But never reach with the earthly mind" (Sidney, l. 15-21). The way Sidney paraphrases "Psalm 139" reveals much about her feelings and attitudes toward God. She seems to feel closer to God than the translators of theKing James version allow. While David states that God "knoweth when I sit, and when I arise;/ thou knowest my mind afar off" (KJV v. 2), Sidney is not content to simply believe that God knows his deeds and deeds.he understands his thoughts from afar. For her, God takes a much more active interest in her daily activities: “For when I sit/ you observe;/ no less you notice when I stand;/ yes, the nearest closet of my thought/ has windows open to your eyes " (l. 3-7). God not only knows his daily activities, but also takes note of them. God does not simply observe his thoughts from Heaven, but witnesses the "closest closet" of his mind. Although David is often described as "a man after God's own heart," Sidney certainly seems to feel a closer emotional connection to God than he does. Sidney continues this sense of closeness throughout the poem. David feels that God directs his steps, but Sidney actually feels that God walks with her (l. 8). He goes on to say that he feels God's presence wherever he goes, while David refrains from making this statement. There is nothing to show that he does not feel the omnipresence of God, but it is Sidney who expresses this concept. Perhaps this can be explained by Sidney's relatively carefree life. While David is forced to flee from a mad and jealous king, and witnesses the incestuous rape of his daughter and the violent death of his son, Sidney only had critics to worry about. Perhaps it is not so surprising that she feels more content in God's refuge than David. It is curious, then, that Sidney personifies the night as a proactive villain, while David simply calls it "darkness." Sidney challenges the night to “Do your best… / With a sable veil to cover me:/ Your sable veil / Will come in vain” (l. 36-39). David simply states that "If I said it, the darkness would cover me; / even the night would be enlightened for me" (v. 11). Although David has faced much more adversity in his life than Sidney, and does not appear to feel as close to God as Sidney, he does not appear to fear attacks to the same extent as Sidney. Sidney's defiant defiance of the night reveals that although she is confident that God can overcome and defeat the darkness, she is still concerned about that same darkness. She sees the night as an opposing force that has somehow chosen her, while David simply recognizes the darkness as an entity that God will deal with. This is a strange phenomenon, because David actually has many more worries than Sidney, yet she seems obsessed with his safety. It could be argued that David is not concerned about the darkness because he has had the opportunity to witness God's power firsthand, while Sidney lives a relatively sheltered lifestyle. Sidney continues to take David's thoughts one step further in line forty-three. David tells God that He is in control of his life and that He has “possessed [his] kingdoms” (v. 13). This implies that David retains possession of his person, but has surrendered all government of himself to God. Sidney tells God that “Every inmost part of me is yours” (l. 43). She is not only giving up control of her independent life to God, but is actually giving every part of herself to Him. As anyone who has ridden horses knows, sometimes simply holding the reins isn't enough to control a strong-willed animal. This is especially true with David. Although he willingly gives the "kingdom" of his life to God, he can and chooses to commit crimes abominable in the eyes of God. He has Bathsheba's husband, Uriah, killed so that he can take her as his wife (2 Samuel, ch. 11. KJV). He knows it's wrong at the time, but he struggles fiercely against God's control over his life. Like a warlike horse, kingdoms mean nothingnothing for him. In this light, it seems that Sidney is attempting to free herself from free choice, as she knows that, left to her own devices, she too will rebel against God's will. Although Sidney appears to be completely comfortable in her faith, at one point, it seems contradict yourself. She states "My God, how I appreciate these studies, / Which show thy hidden works" (l. 64-65), implying that when God makes His thoughts known to her, He also reveals His secrets. However, in lines twenty and twenty-one , states “Well, I may worship thy wisdom, / But never reach it with the earthly mind.” David seems to be more humble in this matter and simply says, “How precious are your thoughts to me, O God” (v. 17). It makes no lofty claim to understand God or His “hidden workings.” He is content simply to listen to the voice of God and does not attempt to decipher His thoughts. While Sidney certainly does not claim to know all of God's secrets, claiming to know even some of them borders on presumption. This presumption is also evident in other lines of Sidney's paraphrase. David puts God first in all his collected thoughts. Even if he runs away from God, he knows that God must necessarily stay before him. He writes: «If I take the wings of the dawn and go to dwell at the edge of the sea,/ even there your hand will lead me and/ and your right hand will grasp me» (v. 10-11). David knows that the hands of God guide him and for this reason he is always before him. Sidney doesn't seem to share this sentiment. She states, “I could flee,/ As far as the evening takes you:/ Even taken to the west it would take me” (l. 32-34). For God to be able to capture her implies that He is behind her, meaning that Sidney has the ability to temporarily escape God and be in front of Him. This is very curious coming from someone who states: "every most intimate part of me is [of God]" (l. 43). Although it may seem trivial to note such a seemingly small aspect in his poetry, it is not as unimportant as it might seem at first glance. Sidney is a brilliant poet and chooses her words very carefully. She purposely changes David's statement that God always leads him, to one that she is capable of leading God, albeit for a very short period of time. God will take her, but first he must follow her. Sydney is interesting because at times she seems extraordinarily confident, at others hesitant and shy. In verse nineteen, David confidently proclaims, “You will surely slay the wicked, O God:/ depart therefore from me, you bloodthirsty men.” He knows without a doubt that God will destroy those who oppose Him. David does not question God's ability to do this and courageously tells those who threaten him to leave immediately. Sidney isn't that brave. She hesitantly asks God: “If you were to kill even one, / Then I would immediately abandon my further hunting / This accursed race” (l. 71-73). It almost seems like he is begging God to remove these obstacles from his path, and only half believes that He will. She does not address her current attackers as David does, because she is not convinced of God's desire or ability to save her. Instead, he silently asks God for help and attempts to avoid further provocations from his enemies. Although Sidney often tries to overcome David's heartfelt confessions, his narrow-mindedness sometimes becomes apparent. David is “grieved with those who rise up against [God]” (v. 21), while Sidney simply hates them: “Do I not detest,/ The ulcerated knot,/ Which I see tied against thee?” (l. 80-82). David's reactive emotions are much more complex than Sidney's. According to the Gage Canadian Dictionary, grief is "a deep sadness caused by trouble or loss; a strong pain", and detest means "to dislike greatly". Davide doesn't simply hate it., 2000. 961-964.